Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Ah, another review of a film everyone's seen already.
Unsurprisingly, I didn't think it was that good. There were some good sections. Spielberg knows how to direct a good action scene, and the film looks great, and, fairly rarely in action films these days, you can actually see what's going on in most action scenes. Each action scene tells a simple story which makes them, for the most part, more engaging. I also think Karen Allen gives a fairly charismatic performance as Marion, even if she doesn't have a great deal to work with
I don't actually think having aliens wrecked the film in any way, although they could have been introduced as a final act twist, rather than have the corpse in the opener which made Indy's denials seem a little weak. Instead my problems with the film were its plotting and writing in general. Indiana Jones has often been a little cartoonish, but never has it been more so in Indy surviving a nuclear blast by climbing into a fridge. Having heard comments on this from film watchers, I had assumed this came near the end, but its actually just thrown in as a gag at the end of the opening action sequence. Its not that its thoroughly implausible, its that its filmed in such a way that makes it even more implausible! The fridge flies past a car which is destroyed by the blast, while the fridge is fine. Why is this fridge the only one to survive the explosion? Why... Oh never mind.
Perhaps it shouldn't have surprised me when later in the film our hero and company survive not one, but three plunges off a cliff into water, the first by bouncing down a bendy tree (!), the latter just by being invincible. Note that shortly after doing this, the Russians following them somehow teleport to catch up with them, like AI in cheating racing games. Harrison Ford has always managed to sell a sense of physical peril, as he gets battered and bruised but survives by the skin of his teeth. Here it never seemed particularly difficult, despite two decades having gone by.
I think the worst sin this films commits is a lack of sense of peril. Its not only that Indy is now apparently an immortal, its that the central quest doesn't really seem worrying. The Russian agent played by Cate Blanchett, in a fairly low charisma performance, asserts that the aliens will give them super psychic powers, but theres really no evidence that this is actually the case, so no surprise that she ends up getting blasted by laser eyes instead. While Indiana Jones has a bit of a tradition of doing this, at least in the other films the protagonist believed that something was at stake. Here the quest just seemed to be happening for the sake of it.
When I watch something like this, or the Star Wars prequels, I'm struck by their unecessary nature. The creative forces behind them didn't need to make these films, but they decided to bring them back.. for
this?
Labels: film, rant, review
Woody Allen and the art and the artist
The funny thing about the Woody Allen case is that there is a situation where Hollywood have been deliberately ignoring a filmmaker's crimes because he makes great films. I'm talking, of course, about Polanski, who was arrested and even charged for sexual assault of a 13 year old girl. Whatever the facts of that case, he has been deliberately avoiding facing those charges ever since.
The Woody Allen case is much more murky. Charges were never pressed against him, but that is hardly a demonstration of innocence. It seems highly likely that Dylan Farrow believes that Allen molested her, but it doesn't seem impossible that such a memory is false. I don't care to make a decision either way, and fortunately I do not have to.
The question of whether you can separate the art from the artist is a tricky one, and much harder if the artist is still alive. If you believe Polanski or Allen are guilty of their crimes, then every time you pay to see one of their films you are giving money to a sex offender who has never faced justice. That seems hard to avoid as a conclusion. That said, I don't agree with the idea that someone's politics necessarily taints their work. Some films might be, because of their subject matter. Manhattan becomes more disturbing if you believe Allen is guilty of his crimes (I have to admit its not a film I rate highly anyway, partially because of the nature of the central romance). But I don't think Midnight in Paris needs to be affected by that. Perhaps Allen should never have been free to make the film in the first place, but not its created, it exists as a piece independent of him. We can interpret it how we like, enjoy it how we like, and we do not need to worry about the author's views.
I'm a fan of "death of the author" to be honest. I think its fun to hear what an authors intentions were, but JK Rowling can say anything about a character, and if its not in the text, then its not a real fact. If Dumbledore being gay isn't apparent in Harry Potter, then he isn't gay I'm afraid. I actually think its entirely possible to read the text in such a way that he is gay, but that is independent of JK Rowling talking about it. The idea of canon is fun, but ultimately there is the text, and there is everything else.
Will I still be watching the works of Woody Allen and Polanski? Probably, yes, but I might think twice about going out of my way to pay for them, particularly the works of Polanski.
Labels: film, ramble, rant
On spoilers
I consume a fairly large amount of media. I've read a lot of books, seen a lot of films, watched a lot of television, played a lot of video games, and seen a fair few plays and musicals. Despite all of this, there are massive gaps in my cultural knowledge. I've never watched a Marx Brothers film, only one Chaplin, and until a few months ago, hadn't seen any Buster Keaton. I have read one Jane Austen novel, two Dickens and very little other classic literature. While I'm vaguely familiar with the shape of much Sherlock Holmes, I don't think I've ever read a story to completion I haven't seen Rocky, the 39 Steps, the original King Kong, past season one of the Sopranos or Dexter, any of Boardwalk Empire, even a complete episode of Poirot. Hell, I still haven't seen the end of the Great Escape thanks to the video cutting out.
So it always annoys me when someone dismissively says "urgh, hasn't everyone seen that yet?" There are very few pieces of media that can be claimed that everyone has seen. Even pieces of culture which have become ingrained, such as star wars, still need to be watched at some point. If you'd gone back in time to child me and ruined the reveal in Empire Strikes Back I would have done... well nothing because I was pretty young, and my ability to get revenge was limited at that point, but I'd definitely be annoyed.
Look, there is more to most stories than the dramatic reveals at key points in the story, and I have watched many things that have been spoiled for me and still enjoyed them, but spoiling thigns can rob that key moment of surprise. I watched Planet of the Apes unspoiled and was actually surprised by the ending (although I have a feeling rewatching it would reveal it as a bit hokey now), and am glad I got that opportunity.
Yes, there are plots you can spoil for me if you want to, and theres not much I can do about it, and by doing so you will have made the world just a tiny bit special. Congratulations, I suppose. For me, I'm going to do my best to let people experience media on their own terms and then have a discussion with them about it.
Labels: books, film, rant, television
Cabin in the woods
To begin with no spoilers, Cabin in the Woods is a fun and funny horror film. Its not for people who dislike gore and violence in general, as there are some slightly unpleasant scenes midway trhough the movie, although they do serve a larger purpose: they are not quite violence for violence sake as in some noted horror staples. If you have no problem with this, Cabin is worth watching, and I’m fairly confident you (yes, you) will enjoy it. One thing I would warn is that, at least for the genre savvy, the film doesn’t actually have the big twists you might expect. The premise of the film has been pretty much explicitly stated by about 15-20 minutes in, and while there are some fun developments, they’re not necessarily completely unexpected.
So, to spoilers, and a full and frank discussion in which I totally give away the end of the film. Cabin in the Woods follows two joint narratives: 5 teenagers out in the woods being slowly (well, not very slowly to be honest) picked off by some crazed zombie rednecks and some corporate drones who control every element of their deaths. The drones (as is revealed implicitly about 20 minutes in, and then explicitly around an hour or so in), must ensure that the deaths occur, and in the correct order, as if they do not the ancient evil which slumbers under the earth will arise and annihilate humanity.
There’s humour to be had out of the premise, and this film certainly has it, especially in the closing third, where the various monsters are unleashed on the facility via a ludicrously placed button. There's some cute shout outs to horror fans, obvious ones being the ring, evil dead and hellraiser, and I'm sure there are more for those who are more genre savvy at me.
Now, pretty obviously, the film serves as a metaphor. This is in no way subtle, and Sigourney Weaver's character is even called the director. The question is, what is the metaphor? The teenagers are the actors, not in control of their destiny, and punished for straying from the script, and the facility are the film makers- jaded and hammering out yet another production, determined to stay on budget and on time. But what of the ancient monsters. The most obvious, and possibly mean spirited interpretation is that the ancients are the audience, demanding the murder of the actors in the same old tired way, the same loop repeated again, and that to break that pact would lead to the falling of horror. But I wonder if this can't be spun in a more positive way. The ritual is a way of keeping the audience passive, sated but not interested, and perhaps Whedon is suggesting that while creativity and originality might destroy film making (and the studio's money), maybe it might make it better.
On a brief note, I think theres a pretty obvious undertone that all these projects are being sabotaged. Its never given who, but for all the projects to fail, and in such specific ways: the failures of the drugs given to the actors, the failures of the explosives, the failure of the faculty's defence mechanisms when the monsters get released: even the monsters getting released in the first place. I like that thats sitting in the background. I don't see how this film could possibly have a sequel, but it allows room for some fun speculation.
So yes, I would recommend Cabin in the Woods, and I would like to watch it again. I think that it would bear repeat viewing well.
Labels: film, review
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
I went into this film pretty much blind, with the knowledge that it had received universal praise from reviewers. I have to admit I expected it to be a cold war spy thriller, and while, technically, it is that, what it truly is is a slow, cold character study of the ruin caused by spying on the character's lives. On some level one could even call it a satire of Spooks.
The film opens fairly excitingly, with a spy sent off to get information on a mole, and a mission gone wrong. We then see Control (I was never clear as to whether this was his code name, or had the greatest spy name ever) get ousted, along with George Smiley, played by Gary Oldman. The film then takes several minutes to show Smiley's empty, dull retirement. During which period, there is absolutely no dialogue. Smiley does not utter a word throughout all of this, his face offering very little as he settles into a routine without life.
If one had, as I had, been expecting a spy thriller, even a classic one, one could easily be disappointed. This is not a film that paces itself up to modern standards. It takes its time, and it feels like quite a while until Smiley finally goes into action. But as a character study, its terrific. As the story unfolds, you see everyone's lives unravel. Even those with more exciting backgrounds, like Tom Hardy or Cumberbatch's character, find themselves ruined by contact to spying.
One of the key speeches is given by Oldman, recollecting what he had said to Kara, the name for the head of the Russian spies. In it he outlines the dangers of the life they lead, and the emptiness of alleigance. It was meant to be persuading Kara, but its clearly depicting Smiley's feelings on the matter.
There are some great performances here. John Hurt as Control is hilariously angry, Tom Hardy is just blindingly charismatic, and Oldman is of course brilliant. The plot is not what will keep you going here. The denoument is understated, and fairly predictable, and there are some weird turns (seriously, owl murder? What?) along the way. But as a taking apart of the spy lifestyle as heroic or exciting, its spot on.
Labels: film, review
Bridesmaids
Bridesmaids is a splendid little comedy. It owes more to Knocked up than it does the Hangover, being a collection of set pieces and improvised comedy. As always with such films, the quality is dependent on the quality of the performers, who are all very funny and engaging.
A long the way theres some emotional truth- the notion of losing friends you've had for life, and people growing past you, is an interesting one, and a fruitful one. Its also really, really funny in places, and just enjoyable to watch.
There are some flaws. It feels a little too long, and Megan is a little too broad for me, it actually feels like its hit the lowest ebb (which films like this always have) twice (although it does comment on this), which makes it feel a bit oddly paced. Still, it wins itself back. I'd definitely recommend checking it out.
Labels: film, review
X-men, first class
I give the most up to date reviews.
I am going to go ahead and give the new X-men a thumbs up. It gets the fundamentals correct, with the main thrust of the story being about a battle between idealism and pragmatism, with Xavier thinking the best of people, and Magneto the worst. Both McAvoy and Fastbender do splendid jobs, although the latter slips into an Irish accent somewhat into the film, which is a tiny bit embarrasing. Still, their stories are compelling, and this is what drives through the film, and powers past many of the flaws that the story possesses.
Along the way there are other effective tales- the younger x-men are mostly forgettable, but Raven and Beast's struggle reflect their "parents", and as a result are the most interesting. The other mutants are, sadly, decoration, and they are given paper thin personalities- the film probably spends more time with them than necessary, as we have no real incentive to care about their struggles.
The script is probably the films weakest part. While its fine when dealing with Xavier and Magneto, everything else seems to have come from film cliches 101
"God help the russians if they cross that line."
"God help us all."
"Can you fly this thing?"
"Fly it? I built it!"
URGH. Not only are both those selections terrifically cliched, they actually add nothing to the film. Theres no reason to actually have them there other than to fill dead air.
But, for the most part, the film works. It could have been better, but it could have been worse, but the central conflict is compelling and fun, and worth a watch.
Now for nitpicking time!
-Kevin Bacon was a lot scarier with a moustache, rather than a groovy submarine dwelling villain who wears a goofy helmet.
-January Jones can't act. Also, her diamond form can be crushed by metal. Huh?
-The CIA agent wears ludicrously sexy underwear to work
-Apparently Kevin Bacon can absorb all force except a shiny penny. I guess he was killed by the force of irony?
-Xavier decides to hide from the government. In his massive mansion, under his own name. Lets hope the CIA didn't do any paperwork!
-Urgh, every single time they had to say someone's name, it felt like a massive wink at the audience. "No.... X-men!"
-I love that Azreal and whirlwind man (did he even get a name?) have NO lines in the film.
-Beast's face mask looked really, really silly.
-When magneto decided to cause an international incident by invading the Russian base, Xavier looks utterly powerless. If only he had some way to control Magneto's actions!
-I love that the expert in genetics they choose is a newly graduated phd student. Man his supervisor must be PISSED. Admittedly his supervisor doesn't have mind powers, but thats just sheer blind luck on the cia's part.
Labels: film, review
fixing twilight
[this is a post I wrote absolutely ages ago, but never got round to posting]
Inspired
by this I decided to try re-writing Twilight. So my main issue with Twilight is the lack of conflict, and the lack of agency on Bella's part.
The film opens as before, with Bella moving to a part of the country she's never been to before, a dead end town, with an uncommunicative dad. Her conversations with her Dad are stilted and awkward, and she finds herself bored and lonely sitting in her room while her dad watches the game.
She goes to school and finds most of the kids agressive to the new. She has a quick wit and an acid tongue, and while she finds that most of the kids hate her she makes a couple of friends with the dweebier kids. The biggest bullies in the school are the Cullens ('cause vampires always rule the roost), and during one exchange where she makes several vampires wither from sarcasm she sees Edward being noticably amused.
Edward, while a member of the bullying clique, is obviously less enthusiastic about it, and soon seeks out Bella alone. He tells her that he's tired of his siblings attitude, the way they look down on the others, and really admires her. Bella is initially wary, but agrees to go on a date with Edward.
The date goes well, although there are strange incongrituities (he's reluctant to go for food, for example), but then they bump into several of the Cullens. They look actively mad that Edward is with Bella, and make pointed comments. Bella asks whats its about, but he demurs.
The date continues, and goes so well that they end up kissing, at which point Edward loses control, and attacks her. She knocks him back, and runs off scared.
Bella goes away and puts together evidence on whats happened (potentially a nudge from Jacob might help here), and realises what he is. Along the way she also reads that vamps have a sensitivity to loud sounds. She confronts Edward, and a scene somewhat similar to the one in the woods occured, although less stupid. Edward tells her that he is a monster, and shows his strength. He explains that he and the other cullens are not really related, but are vampires who have chosen not to drink human blood. None the less, most of them consider themselves superior to humans. Edward is the only one who thinks of it as a curse- most of the other vampires decided to stop drinking human blood for safety's sake, and still take enjoyment in petty cruelty. He says that despite his attitude, he finds it hard to control himself with her. She tells him she doesn't care, and kisses him. When he is about to lose it (lets say fangs come out), she backs off, gives him a second, and he retains control.
So they go into school hand in hand, as in the film, and this causes a social tidal wave- most of the kids suddenly start treating Bella better, although her friends are a little distant from her, thinking they've lost her. One of the Cullens, lets call her evil Cullen, shows active hostility towards Bella, although some of the others are slightly more sympathetic.
We then have crisis scene, where Bella is on her way home with Edward when evil Cullen appears with a couple of lackeys. She threatens Bella, who responds that they won't attack her, because they don't want trouble with the police- after all, she's the daughter of the police chief. They respond that they won't attack HER, then make off with Edward.
She tries to pursue, but can't keep up with the super fast vampires. She goes home and has mandatory pep talk from her dad, which is also a chance for them to be emotionally reunited. Realising she knows just where the Cullens would go (some snippet of conversation earlier in the film), she pursues them.
Bella appears, finds Edward abandoned on the floor beaten and bloodied. From nowhere the Cullens appear and surround her, saying that they are in the middle of nowhere and the police will never find out what happened. Bella pulls out of her pocket a rape alarm/fog horn and blares away. The vampires stagger back, but are mostly unaffected, and laugh, saying that that is just a stupid story, and move forward to attack. Bella smiles, and says "yeah, well theres one other purpose of producing a loud, wailing noise" at which point the entire police department bursts through the doors. Most of the cullens get away, apart from evil cullen who manages to escape, and promises revenge.
Bella and Edward exhange romantic sweet nothings, with hints of worry for the future. Roll credits.
My main goal while writing this was
a-introduce far more conflict into a slow and turgid film
b-make Bella a far more active character
Labels: film, random, rant
The Social Network and the necessity of truth
The Social Network is a terrific film. Its a film about the quest for power, and the corruption inherent in it. Its beauty is in its refusal to assign motivations. Other than its final shot, which seemed a little too simple to me, it never allows you to guess exactly what Mark Zuckerberg's motivations are, and merely provides potential answers. His actions seem confusing and contradictory, and thats the inherent beauty in it. The writing is, as you might expect, splendid, seeing as it is Aaron Sorkin doing the work. It is definitely a film one should see.
There has been, however, some controversy over pasts of the film. Elements, at least, are supposedly complete works of fiction. This can bother some, but it really should only bother you if you are looking for something that the film is not. The Social Network is not a documentary, it is a film based on a real life story, and as such isn't trying to give an insight into the real life Mark Zuckerberg, but rather the fictional one the film creates. No doubt there are similarities there, but one cannot really inform the other. The important question to ask is whether the character they create is fascinating, and that is certainly the case.
I can see why one might be off put by a documentary that deliberately misleads, because there is a sense of betrayal there, and perhaps certain film goers are leaving the Social Network thinking that they've learnt something about the creation of Facebook. They have, but probably not what they think they have. Citizen Kane is no less interesting for being a work of fiction, and neither is this.
Labels: film, rant, review
Tamara Drewe
I have many blogs and rants to write, which I will do so when I find the time. First, a film review.
To start with the positive, this can be a very funny film. The teenagers are excellent, and provide a lot of the laughts. Theres also some good emotional character work, in particular Tamsim Greg and her background is, at least initially good.
Sadly, however, this film. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, it establishes several characters which it doesn't really know what to do with, for example the rockstar Ben is either a complete arse in one scene or a decent human being in the next, and to be honest his entire sub-plot could probably be removed from the film. This is exemplified by Tamara Drewe herself. She probably has less lines than the afore mentioned teenagers (who are also, inexplicably, given semi-character arcs that don't really work), and as a result we really don't get a handle on her decisions. Does she love Ben? We wouldn't know, they barely speak to each other. Does she love Andy? They speak even less! Why does she choose to make the poor choices she makes? Well she's very sad, according to Tamsin Greg's character, and other than a random speech at the end, the film never shows us this, it just tells us.
Secondly, the film doesn't really know what it wants to be. Its broadly comedic in tone with a central romantic drama grounding the action. Yet the ending is astonishing in its tone, and without spoiling much, pretty much ruins anything the film could have been. It was a startling choice. I think this tonal difficulty probably comes from wanting to adapt the graphic novel. Not having read it, I strongly suspect that many of the scenes I issue come straight from it.
I ended up not enjoying this film. Alice absolutely detested it, and while I don't have the utter hatred for it that she did, I certainly can't recommend it. I'm surprised its done as well critically as it has.
TIME FOR SPOILERS
I think that this film could actually have worked. I would have removed Ben entirely from the film, and spent a little bit more time on the affair between Tamara and Beth's husband, to make it make a bit more sense. The teenagers could have been the fuel towards the plot if necessary, but I don't think giving them a subplot really helped the film- they're better off as Shakespearian fool figures, leavening the drama as we go. I almost certainly wouldn't have killed off the husband at the end, and I'd probably have Tamara leave at the end, rather than getting together with Andy (who'd probably be even more sidelined in my version). I think this would emotionally centre the film, and give it a bit more time to focus on the characters- taking what worked and making that the film.
Labels: film, review
Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
Geeks owe it to themselves to see this film. There was never a film made more for those of us who have gamed all our lives, and many of the logic and jokes work from those.
This is a splendid film. Its visually inventive and lovely, blending video game and comic visuals in a stunning manner which is both amusing and impressive, with each fight scene being a joy to watch. Its very funny, with most of the humour deriving from Scott being an arse or the utter incogriuity of the fight scenes being blended into normal life. It definitely made me want to check out the books.
There are some flaws. The film has a lot to pack in, and certain sub plots, such as Envy, feel a bit unfinished, as if there was meant to be something more and the film maker ran out of time. Also, there could have been a little more time spent on Ramona- while apparently in the books she has her own journey, here she is merely someone to be chased after. She does have her own personality, but it would have been nice if she'd had a little more to do.
Still, this is such a fun piece of film making I really do think its worth checking out. See it!
Labels: film, review
Inception, a review and discussion
So, I shall start with a non-spoilered review. Its an excellent film, of a level you simply do not see for blockbuster films. This is up there with the Matrix quite easily as a massive, big budget film, that has actually thought about what its doing (yes, I know the Matrix's ideas have been ripped off other things, but its an ultimately clever film despite that). I am pretty confident that it will go into my list of favourite films that I've seen.
At its core its a heist film, but by setting it in dreams it gets to explore a lot more. In particular, its a heist with astonishing, inventive active sequences that is actually mostly about DeCaprio's emotional status. This film is
about things, more of which i'll explore in the spoiler section.
Are there some flaws? Kinda- some of the film drags a tiny bit- in particular I don't think the snow fight works entirely, because its not entirely clear where everyone is in connection to each other, so it feels like a sequence of disconnected fights. Its still pretty breath taking along with that, with some lovely moments, but I think it could have been better done. Theres also a couple of moments of unnecessary exposition later in the film, but for the most part these are well done and explain the film well.
Whats terrific about this film is that while its complicated, and at its climax a lot is going on, its sufficiently explained its world that you should be able to follow whats happening at any point.
A must see film. I really want to see this film do well, because as Mark Kermode said, if it does well it'll show that blockbusters really don't need to be brainless to succeed.
And now, spoilers. Please see the film before reading this next part. Seriously. totally going to spoil the film.
You better have seen the film if you're reading this part. It would be a real shame to not experience all the joys of this film by itself.
OK, so. What I love about this film is that its all about DeCaprio's guilt. One thing the Matrix did not really explore was the idea that maybe staying in the Matrix was fine. Cypher was the only character who wanted to, and he clearly wasn't meant to be someone the audience was meant to like. Inception, however, is actually fine with the idea that maybe reality isn't all its cracked up to be.
The film does appear to reject the notion of staying in dreams- Mal (had to look up the spelling for that) would seem to represent the notion of staying in fantasy. Yet really she doesn't. Its made sort of explicit, but Mal represents Caprio's guilt. Consider his only dream space, where each level contains a memory of his past live. But, crucially, these aren't good times, happy moments- these are his failures, the moments he desperately wishes he could change, so much so that he keeps coming back and looking at them. Staying with Mal, on the level she wants, would be to give in to his guilt about his wife's death, not to succumb to a healthy fantasy- its not just that the dream of Mal is unreal, its that its a horrifying dream of her.
To me, the final spinning top, with its ambiguous nature, is the entire point for me. It doesn't MATTER if that final moment is a dream or not- the point is that it is a healthy one. Getting to see his children means that Leo has moved on from his wife, and accepted emotionally that he is allowed to see them. His exile from America, is, on some level, self imposed, and only by letting go off his wife is he able to end it.
So, was it all a dream? Possibly, but I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with this explanation. For it to work, I think it has to be Caprio's own dream, with Mal having successfully escaped, but he is still trapped.
Why? Well in the "waking moments" of the film, the spinning top settles. I suppose its possible that Caprio has so accepted the dream that he has given up on his totem- stealing his wife's, which won't work for him. I'll consider both cases, and point out issues with both.
The first scenario is an incredibly dark one. It implies that Mal is now awake, but her husband is still trapped. Worse yet, this means the entire film is not about Caprio dealing with guilt, but accepting the fantasy. After all, Mal has escaped- she was right, and he was wrong, yet Caprio is instead struggling to ignore that. This scenario explains the other characters lack of back story. The film is all about Caprio, of course, but the only other character (excluding Mal) to get back story of any real kind is Fisher, which is interesting in of itself. What Fisher represents here I'm not sure. Potentially Caprio's own father issues? Or merely a clever puzzle for him to solve?
There are some issues with this theory- the darkness of it is a little off putting, as the message of the film is overwhelmingly positive, and this would undercut it heavily, which would be an odd choice to say the least. Also, in the "real world", Caprio comes under attack. But this theory would imply this was own subconscious attacking him. This still can be explained- obviously his subconscious is attempting to protect him, to draw him from the dream. If so, Saito represents temptation to stay- note that Mal actually attempts to stop him from doing this.
The other theory is that this isn't Caprio's dream. He's the subject, or possibly the dreamer (but the latter doesn't make much sense). In which case, its not entirely sure who the dreamers ARE. Who they are matters a lot, as it changes the tone. Saito and Aradaine (Ellen Page) seem the most likely in this situation. So, in turn, whats their motivation?
In Saito's case, the same motives might apply. How on earth could he get the US to drop the charges? So instead he takes Caprio into a dream level, (which means the film starts in the third level of dreaming!), and convinces him and his partners to do this job. He then brings Fisher in, and the scenario plays out as in the film. The ending is then definitely a dream, which makes sense.
This is quite nice, and clever on Saito's part. It certainly makes sense, with the agents in the "real world" once again playing the part of Caprio's unconscious trying to wake him up, and ties up any holes that the film might have. The only issue with this as a theory is that thematically its a little disappointing- Saito would be doing it out of greed, and thematically thats not really very interesting, and doesn't really tie in to what else is going on.
Finally we have Ellen Page. This is stolen from another site, which sadly I lack a link to, but she could be Caprio's therapist. Caprio is in need of saving- he needs to badly deal with his guilt, and at every stage Page manages to push him to deal with his problems. In fact, she even goes in to investigate his subconscious (within his own unconscious!). She claims this is because she wants to know the truth about him before she works with him, but it also makes sense that she is analysing him. This would also explain her rapid pick up of the concepts of the dream world. There are a couple of issues here- Fisher becomes a bit of a cypher then, and also it makes the ending difficult to explain- why is Caprio still in the dream, and not woken up?
I'm not sure which explanation I accept, but I like that there are so many of them, and that the film is open enough to allow all of them.
Labels: film, review
Twilight
So I had certain preconceptions going into this film. I certainly didn't think I'd enjoy it all that much- after all, it wasn't targeted at me- but I did think that it would be competently made. After all, this was a fairly high budget film, and had a lot riding on it. Remarkably, the film failed to meet even those standards.
Theres a lot to go over here, so I'll break it down
-The acting
Twilight is, at its heart, about a romance (although I'll get to to this later). To sell such a story, you must have decent actors. Sadly our leads fail utterly here. I don't know if they have put in good performances elsewhere, but here they feel like they are desperately trying to over act every scene. Watching Kristen Stewarts face in every scene was really very funny, as her face went through a gamut of expressions in an attempt to display emotional complexity. A lot of the lines came out flat and emotionless, and while I get that they were going for awkward conversation between her and Edward, it came across as if they had forgotten their lines and needed prompts every 10 seconds. I've seen better performances in the Hills. Of course, performances can often be blamed on:
-The direction
The entire film has an irritating colour filter put over the top of it that makes it look like the characters are in the matrix. I don't entirely get why this choice was made, as it gives the entire world a sheen of unreality- but not in a fantastic way, as one might expect with the gothic romance tone that one might imagine this film could aim for. The action in this film looks kind of shoddy and cheap, and feels like its escaped from a music video.
-Bella
Now I have no idea what Bella is like in the books, but in the film I don't see why we are meant to like her. She is our protagonist after all- she gets a voice over for crying out loud- but she comes across as utterly unlikable. She doesn't appear particularly smart, or funny, and rarely talks, yet everyone at school likes her. Initially there is an indication that maybe she is going to become an outcast, after her car gets mocked, but very shortly everyone in the school decides they like her
despite Bella rarely ever talking to her.
This is the female hero we're meant to like? She does or says nothing to earn our affection, and spends most of the time mooning over Edward. Bella is actually the central reason this film fails, and I'll come back to her later.
-The romance
I have a serious issue with this kind of romance, it has to be said- Buffy the vampire slayer has exactly the same problem. A 16 year old (Bella might be 15, not sure), fall in love with a century (or more) old immortal being. A bit squicky, certainly, especially as both in Buffy and in Twilight the love is not based on any kind of deep connection, rather the "love at first sight" thing. That is a hard thing to sell, and Twilight fails at doing so- Edward and Bella have mostly awkward conversations, split up by (admittedly romantic) dates where Edward does something impressively super human. It doesn't feel like a real relationship. Of course the failure of the leads to act is a big issue too.
Note that this kind of romance can be sold. Romeo and Juliet is a good example- their romance is really based on sand, but, in, for example, the Baz Lurhmann version we get a good feeling that THEY believe it- there is a strong sense of infatuation at least, which just isn't sold here.
-The script
One reason we don't buy many of the relationships is that the script doesn't sell them. People really only talk in this film to advance the plot, which sounds fine, but this film should be about relationships, and if everyone is having exposition dialogue, you don't get a feeling of a relationship between characters. Which is disastrous for you caring about them.
-The plot
This is a major failing of the film. Where is the conflict in this film? What is it about. Lets summarise the plot (OMG spoilers!)
-Bella comes to a new town, feeling like an outsider, but its ok because everyone there thinks she's awesome
-Bella spies a hotty named Edward, and wants to get into his pants
-She's meant to sit next to him during Biology, but he becomes uncommunicative and then doesn't show up for their remaining classes
-A car almost crashes into Bella, and Edward saves her
-Turns out, he's a vampire
-She's cool with that
-he saves her, again, from some thugs in town
-They get together
-She meets his family of vampires, who are actually utterly supportive. One of them is a bit moody about it
but nothing comes of it-They make out a bit, and Edward mumbles that apparently he can't control himself, but its not very well sold.
-Edward meets her dad, who, again, is FINE WITH IT
-They bump into some evil vampires (this is very close to the end of the film)
-One of the evil vampires decides to kill Bella, primarily because not only is he a dick, he's a really stupid dick
-He tricks Bella (not hard to do, folks!) into coming alone to a dance studio alone, almost kills her but then Edward turns up and saves her
-The film keeps going on, the audience dies of boredom
So, wheres the conflict here? There could be an issue with a new school, but, as mentioned, there isn't. There is a minor conflict with Edward not liking her, but its done really poorly, and I'm not sure why we're meant to care.
Bella cares, but only because hes a cutie, as far as I can tell- after all, the rest of the bloody school loves her.
The romance itself should have a conflict at its heart- Edward has to hold himself back from hurting her. But bear in mind
Edward isn't the protagonist, so we don't care about his pain. What should be happening is that the romance is palpably dangerous, and Bella has to make a choice to continue it- it should be about Bella having to change and emotionally grow, but Bella really doesn't change. From the moment she sees Edward she want to be with him and this desire is utterly constant. This is why she makes a terrible protagonist.
This theme of Edward being the only character who's actually changing remains constant to the end of the film, where the bad vampires, who have been built up a tiny bit (in a sub plot that feels disconnected from the rest of the film), decide to kill Bella. Yet again, the threat feels dulled- theres one bad vampire against 7 good vampires, after all- it'd be a hell of a lot better the other way round- and feels tacked on, as if the film needs an exciting conclusion. The threat is an external agency, and I think would be a lot more tense if it had, perhaps, been one of the Cullen family.
so Bella goes to save her mother, not telling anyone else in an act so appallingly stupid she should really get a prize, and then Bella gets beaten up in a surprisingly distressing film. Then Edward has to save her, as she has vampire venom in her, and will turn. So Edward has to show self restraint, and fight against his instincts to save her.
So once again theres the problem that while this should be Bella's film, the only person who has to become a better person is Edward. Bella doesn't change. She doesn't treat her friends or family any better, she doesn't become more or less active, she just continually mopes. You cannot have your protagonist do this and expect the audience to care. She has to have something about her to care about. Its just insane.
I was really disappointed by Twilight. I understand thats its not made for me, but it doesn't seem to be made for people who understand stories, for crying out loud. It just feels terribly incompetent. Now I've only seen this film, so defences that tell me that the book, or the sequels, are different, are not terribly convincing. As a stand alone piece of film, this is absolutely, unremittingly, dreadful.
Labels: film, rant, review
The true value of critisism
Its rather easy, and entertaining, to be negative. Many popular critics exist who's main goal is to tear down terrible enterprises. Its enjoyable stuff, and very funny in the right hands. The true art, however, is to explain what is good about a film.
The ability to express, in an articulate and interesting way, what makes a piece of art worthwhile is magical. Look at Amadeus, where we have the beauty of Mozart's music laid out for us in such a way that enriches the experience. At their best, a critic should be able to provide ways of seeing a piece of art that you were unable to before. This is one of the reasons why I love film spotting, a film podcast from Chicago. Both critics are able to explain very well what makes a film worth seeing, in such a way that makes me want to watch it again, so I can appreciate the things they see that make it special.
We will not always agree with critics. Many things are subjective, and while there are objective measurements one can apply, how you rank them may vary (I might prefer a beautifully crafted shot over a carefully constructed narrative, for example), but a good critic should allow you to understand why they have taken the position they are at, even if such a position is not true for you.
Labels: film, rant
Top 5 films of the decade
Inspired by
film spotting, that most excellent podcast, I've decided to post my top 5 films from the last decade.
Its a tough one, and I have some honorable mentions that I'll share at the end. Note, I will in all probability spoil each film that I talk about here.
#5 No Country for Old Men: The Coen brothers have often shown an obsession with showing characters falling because of their obsession with riches. Here the main character is actually damned for his pity- he could have gotten away if he hadn't come back to give a dying man some water. This is a cruel film, about the harshness of the world. Our protagonist does not die during INSANELY tense scenes earlier in the film, but is murdered off camera. Anton Chigurh, who gives a brilliant performance, does not get caught, or punished, and the only misfortune he suffers is due to random chance.
#4 The Incredibles: Yes, I know, on some level, that WallE is better. Except I have seen few things that have managed to accurately capture the family dynamic as well as the Incredibles. I have seen few films with action as kinetic as this film. Its a brilliant, funny, family story, and I will hold it above other Pixar films for a long time to come. The moral at its core is a tiny bit muddled, but otherwise I find this film flawless.
#3 City of God: Wow. Now this is one hell of a film. Filmed using actors from the slums of Rio De Janiero, this tells the rise of a gangster with no soul, and the war erupting when he decides to take control of the entire region. As the narrative proceeds, and we see a monster take more and more control, we also follow our protagonist, who is learning how to be an adult, falling in love, and doing his best to escape the slum. Of course, his escape only underlines all those who failed to do so, and instead took up a gun, dying before their eighteenth birthday.
#2 Memento: Still probably Christopher Nolan's best film, the central conceit here is brilliant, and is vital to underline the mystery at the heart of the film. We follow the film from the perspective of one who has forgotten all he has done, and it leads to moments of hilarity, and moments of tension. A splendid film that should be watched by all.
#1 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Well it had to be, didn't it? The perfect marriage of Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman to make a film about love and memories, and how forgetting does us no good. The imagination, the wit, the soul on display here is splendid to observe. I don't think Gondry has been as good since- Science of Sleep explores the same themes, but felt a lot more empty than this work. Great performances here from everyone- I love both Carey and Winslet in this film. We get to see the best and worse of their relationship, and even the ending works (something that often lacked in Kaufman's earlier films).
Honorable mentions- The Dark Knight is the best super hero film so far, but is outmatched by other films on this list. Amelie is a beautiful fairy tale, and could easily be on this list. Children of Men would definitely be on this list if I had watched it more than once- I absolutely loved it, but am worried that my memories might be unfairly fond. Spirited Away is amazing, and was really just pushed off here. Slumdog Millionare is fantastic- a dark fairytale in the slums of India.
What's everyone elses' top 5?
Labels: film, review
Kick-Ass
This is, in my humble opinion, the film that Watchmen should have been. Yes, its nothing particularly like the film or the comic, but in a way Kick-Ass graps what the comic is about a lot more firmly than the film of Watchmen did. Superheroes have been in need of a decent satire. They have had parody- see Mystery Men for that, but a satire is a bit more subtle and interesting.
Kick-Ass has a lot going on. Its about a geeky guy discovering girls, about a boy trying to be a man, trying to make a difference. Its about an old cop taking revenge. Its about a young girl who's had her childhood stolen. Its about a relationship as messed up as the one found in Leon. Its even about one childs desperation for the approval of his father. And its also about some funny and kinetic action scenes.
For the most part it succeeds in balancing all these- the plot moves along fairly pacily (it drags a tiny bit to begin with, but its forgivable), with a blending of the surreal and the realistic- a kid tries to dress up as a superhero, but soon discovers why its not a good idea. The only real misstep in the blending of these elements was the conclusion: I felt like the main characters motivations were a bit weak to take part in the conclusion, he simply hadn't grown up enough.
There has been some kerfuffle about Hitgirl in this film. First of all- her story is a tragedy, and we know its a tragedy, but nothing simple is happening here. Nicholas Cage plays Big Daddy well, and its clear he has affection for her, even as he destroys her life. The film knows this, but also knows quite how cool she looks when fighting bad guys. The scenes are simultaneously a comment on comic book action, and just plain awesome.
As for the notion, suggested by some, that she is a "paedophiles fantasy"... well she's not that sexualised. At one point she does wear a school uniform.. but shes an 11 year old girl! Her super hero outfit is in no way sexy, she does not strike sexy poses... She certainly participates in violence, but the film addresses that- at no point is she sexualised. Its certainly possible a person with a deranged mind might find something there, but are we to cut out 12 year old girls from films on the possibility that people might be aroused?
I'd definitely recommend seeing Kick-Ass, its a splendid film, and well worth your time.
Labels: film, review
critics, e4, and the curse of trailers
"Why would you base your decision to see a film on the opinion of a critic?"
This is a question that has been asked of me more than once by several people. They point out, quite reasonably, that there is no guarantee that said critic will be correct. I might well enjoy the film anyway. Its true, I might, and if I had infinite time and money, I'm pretty sure I'd see practically every film that was on. I don't, however, and must make targeted choices. What do these people base their opinions on? Trailers. Trailers are the devil, as I shall expound later.
A good critic should not just give you their opinion for a film, they should also give their basis for it. If you understand them, and a good critic should be able to communicate effectively, then you should be able to appreciate whether you'll agree with them. This won't always work- you can see cliches as fun or awful, depending on your particular take, and two very smart people can see very different things in the same film. Still, good reviews (I should really seperate critisism and reviews, which are seperate things), should give you an idea of what someone would like or dislike about a film.
Trailers do none of these things. Trailers are DESIGNED to misleading, and, even worse, they can often mislead you in the wrong direction. Trailers are designed for a demographic, and to appeal to that demographic only, to the point where they can be actively offputting to people not in that demographic.
e4 is my favourite example. As far as I can tell, they assume their audience are half wits who find the twaddle they consider "humour" amusing, to the point where they will undersell perfectly good shows. Watch a trailer for any of e4's comedys, and find me a bit where they actually manage to indicate any of that shows merits. Quite frequently they will simply take snippets from the show and pretend that they are having a conversation. This might be fine to someone familiar with said show, but to someone new, they have utterly failed to give me a reason to watch the sodding thing.
A case in point is the Big Bang Theory. I had assumed from the trailers that it would be devoid of laughs, so imagine my surprise when the other night I decided to settle on an episode. Heaven forbid... it was really quite funny! It wasn't the greatest example of comedy ever found by any means, but it was enjoyable, and certainly a lot better than certain other imports. Thanks to e4's genius, I had been denying myself a perfectly good show.
Trailers are the devil. They will mislead, and they will not help. Avoid them at all costs.
Labels: film, rant, television
A defence of violence in media
So I've linked
to this on facebook, a rather depressing and infuriating segment from that hallowed font of wisdom, Alan Titchmarsh. Distressingly, despite Tim Ingham's reasoned argument, Peasgood is happy to make some moronic sound bites. Video games, are, of course, as rated as dvds, and as such, should not be in children's hands. Now they will, of course, find their way into the posession of minors, either through adults ignorance of their content, or their approval (more on this later). However, the notion of infantalising media so as to protect children is a disturbing one.
Censorship is a frightening thing. I'm of the opinion that the only content that should potentially be censored is that that is clearly slanderous and misleading, that distorts facts and tells lies. Such media is not defensible, unless it has some artistic context that indicates that such slander is not true (satire comes under this). Art produced illegally- by performing illegal acts, should also be restricted for obvious reasons.
Censoring media for violence or extreme sexual practices (which is something the BBFC does do) is not something I approve of. Who are we protecting with these methods? Yes, children should not see such extreme things, but stopping adults seeing something simply because children shouldn't is, again, absurd. It may be that not many people want to see such extremes, but i'm not sure we have a right to stop those people from seeing it.
A question asked in this video by Titchmarsh is why Tim Ingham enjoys violent content. Ingham hedges a little, and talks about the players place in the narrative. This is probably true, of, say, call of duty. There is a clear plot goal, and you must kill enemies to do so. There is not much (at least in the first modern warfare) reveling in the death of your opponents, instead merely defeating those things that get in your way. The point he missed is that games present challenge- the challenge is to defeat enemies here, by using a simulation of real life combat, and the joy is, of course, in the challenge. Again, no reveling in violence.
So do we never revel in violence in media? Of course we do. In Evil Dead 2, there is a moment in which an absolutely absurd amount of blood pours out of the wall at our hero, Ash. in context it is absolutely hilarious. Just as with the knight in monty python, and the enemies with their limbs in Kill Bill, we are enjoying the violence here, primarily because it is such surreal excess. The vomiting scene in Team America isn't funny because he's vomiting, its funny because he is vomiting a ridiculous amount. A simple joke, but a funny one none the less.
Note that in many ways these jokes are meta jokes on violence- they play with your expectations as to what would happen when something nastily violent happened, and take to extreme levels. In the relief of that tension comes laughter. Such humour depends on an expectation built from media where violence IS taken seriously of course.
Can violence become uncomfortable? Of course it can, but that line is different for everyone. What might be a ridiculous black comedy for some becomes just disturbing for people who find any level of violence unpleasent. Final Destination is very clearly a black comedy- see the scene in the kitchen. The manner of the death is absurd, yet a tiny bit unpleasent along with that- the reactions feel real, despite the absurdity of the situation. For me, that was enough to make me feel put off, but for those with more experience with gore in horror, it was undoubtedly rather amusing. After all, none of this is REAL. We are reminded of this by the filmmaker, who cleverly points out the absurd, either in the situation or in the gore presented, which draws us out of the narrative enough to be sitting beside him, and realise quite what he is saying.
There are, of course, violent films that revel in their violence without giving the audience an excuse to escape. There are no winks at the audience, no attempts at humour. We are simulating someone's death. Taboos are made to be broken, and thats what film makers do. With us being desensitised to violence (watch Clockwork orange again and count how much violence is actually shown. Now watch a more recent violent film), some film makers still want to horrify. Are they reveling in the pain, or forcing us to acknowledge that this pain exists? I don't know, and it probably depends on the watcher.
To decry such expressions as meaningless is dangerous. I don't consider myself the arbiter of taste and decency, and neither should anyone else. If I have a line I don't want to be crossed in films, then I simply will stop watching films in which that line is crossed. Not all forms of entertainment or art are for everyone, and nor should they be, but to decide that ones limits on the acceptable are the same as everyone else's is incredibly dangerous, and exactly what the censors of this society would like you to think.
Labels: art, film, gaming, rant
Funny People
Its another review of a film that was out months ago! Woot!
Funny People is probably the most filmic film that Judd Apatow has ever made. He has made some good films- the Forty Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up spring to mind, but both suffered from improvisation: Apatow allowing actors to freestyle and say whatever came to their minds. This often detracted from the pace of the film, with scenes that added nothing to the characters or plot, just the occasional laugh. Thats fine, but it doesn't really make a film. Even worse, some of the more emotional scenes in Knocked Up feel improvised, and that undermines their impact somewhat.
Funny People doesn't have that problem. It probably has some improvised content, but clearly some scripted stuff too. The comedy often tells us something about the characters, and for once we have a strong plot. Adam Sandler as George Simmons is excellent, an absolutely horrible man who has abused everyone around him, and now he realises he is dying, is trying to change... except he doesn't. A lot has been said in other reviews I've read or heard about how the final act of the film doesn't really work, and while it is a tad clunky, the point is to underline quite how selfish Simmons is. He intends to destroy a family, claiming it is the right thing to do. The way this part of the story is told is a bit clunky, but the point is there.
Apatow's comedy only blossoms when it has a strong story hook to attach it to, and the more discipline he subjects himself to can only make his films better. This is probably his best film yet.
Labels: film, review
Up in the Air
This is definitely a film worth seeing. Jason Reitman has put out three magnificent films with Thank you For Smoking, Juno and now this. Its very funny, certainly but the emotional undercurrents are more than a little astounding. I had expected a traditional narrative structure to this film, and felt a little disconcerted when the film continued to defy it. These characters are humans, not hollywood characters as you might expect at the start. There is not necessarily going to be an easy change of heart that will make the character happy.
Its a film that warrants repeat viewing, I suspect. I was so disconcerted by the ending that I think I need to watch again to decide how I feel about it. It wasn't where I felt the story was going, and some of the ending scenes felt a little rushed- the story shuddered a little towards an ending. Its experimental, and its interesting, and needs to be watched again.
Labels: film, review
